Company report
Summary Results
Newcrest Mining is one of the five strongest performing companies for Lifecycle Management issues, largely due to the company having developed a systematic approach to applying socio-economic and environmental criteria during investment decision-making processes.
Overall, Newcrest Mining’s strongest results relate to the formal commitments it has made on a range of issues: business ethics, anti-bribery and corruption, transparency of mineral revenues, human rights, and occupational health and safety. The company also shows evidence of tracking its performance on providing safe and healthy working conditions.
Conversely, Newcrest Mining’s overall results are limited by a lack of evidence on Economic Development issues. For example, no evidence was found of the company developing procurement opportunities for producing country suppliers beyond those around its mining operations. There was also no evidence of Newcrest Mining having systems to support in-country capacity building for R&D related to EESG issues in mining.
The maximum value of 1.000 represents the aggregation of best scores achieved for all indicators in a given thematic area, taking into account all companies’ results. As the aggregate best score varies from one area to another, these charts cannot be used to compare company performances across different areas.
All company results are based on public domain data that have been sourced by RMI analysts or provided by companies. In the case of a few companies, very little information was available. It is important to note that a low score may only reflect a lack of relevant information in the company’s publicly available documentation.
Relative company performance
Commitment (11 indicators)
Action (41 indicators)
Effectiveness (21 indicators)
Indicator-by-indicator results
Economic Development
A.01 National and Regional Socio-Economic Development Planning
A.02 Procurement
A.03 Capacity Building
A.04 Enhancing the National Skills Base
Selected Mine sites results
Mine sites individually assessed but not included
in the overall company score
| Mine Site Name | Local Procurement (score /6.00) | Local Employment (score /6.00) | Community grievance mechanism (score /6.00) | Workers grievance mechanism (score /6.00) | Water quality and quantity (score /6.00) | Biodiversity management (score /6.00) | Mine site (score /6.00) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bonikro | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.83 |
| Gosowong | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.67 |
| Lihir | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.83 |
List of all mine sites
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Company's share (%) | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bonikro | Côte d'Ivoire | 89.89 | Gold, Silver | Open-pit | |
| Cadia Valley Operations | CVO, Cadia East, Ridgeway, Cadia Hill | Australia | 100 | Gold, Copper | Open-pit, Underground |
| Gosowong | Toguraci, Kencana | Indonesia | 75 | Gold, Silver | Open-pit, Underground |
| Lihir | Papua New Guinea | 100 | Gold, Silver | Open-pit | |
| Telfer | Main Dome, West Dome | Australia | 100 | Gold, Copper | Open-pit, Underground |
Assets sold during the assessment period
| Mine Site Name | Aliases | Country | Products | Mining types |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hidden Valley | Papua New Guinea | Gold, Silver | Open-pit |
Main Shareholders
| As of: 09/02/2018 | Shares (%) |
|---|---|
| BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Ltd. | 7.52 |
| Allan Gray Australia Pty. Ltd. | 6.74 |
| First Eagle Investment Management, L.L.C. | 6.14 |
| Van Eck Associates Corporation | 3.86 |
| BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A. | 2.82 |
| The Vanguard Group, Inc. | 2.37 |
| Colonial First State GAM Global Resources | 1.82 |
| Fidelity Management & Research Company | 1.71 |
| Vanguard Investments Australia Ltd. | 1.49 |
| J O Hambro Capital Management Limited | 1.47 |
| Orbis Investment Management Ltd. | 1.29 |
| BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited | 1.21 |
| APG Asset Management | 1.14 |
| First State Investments (HK) Ltd. | 1.1 |
| Capital International Investors | 1.1 |
Known Subsidiaries
| As of: 30/06/2017 | Country |
|---|---|
| Cadia Holdings Pty Limited | Australia |
| Contango Agricultural Company Pty Ltd | Australia |
| LGL Exploration CI SA | Côte d'Ivoire |
| LGL Mines CI SA | Côte d'Ivoire |
| LGL Resources CI SA | Côte d'Ivoire |
| Lihir Gold Limited | Papua New Guinea |
| Newcrest Dougbafla CI SA | Côte d'Ivoire |
| Newcrest Exploration (Fiji) Pte Limited | Fiji |
| Newcrest Exploration Holdings Pty Ltd | Australia |
| Newcrest (Fiji) Pte Limited | Fiji |
| Newcrest Finance Pty Limited | Australia |
| Newcrest Hire CI SA | Côte d'Ivoire |
| Newcrest Holdings (Investments) Pty Limited | Australia |
| Newcrest Insurance Pte Ltd | Singapore |
| Newcrest International Pty Ltd | Australia |
Known Tax Jurisdictions
| Australia | Côte d'Ivoire | Fiji | Indonesia | Papua New Guinea | Singapore |
| USA |
Recent involvements in Investor/State investment disputes (since 2014)
Disclaimer
The findings, conclusions and interpretations within this 2018 Responsible Mining Index (RMI) report do not necessarily represent the views of funders, trustees, and employees of the Responsible Mining Foundation, and others who participated in consultations and as advisors to the report.
This report is intended to be for information purposes only and is not intended as promotional material in any respect. The report is not intended to provide accounting, legal, tax or investment advice or recommendations, neither is it intended as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. In order to fully understand the methodology of the 2018 Responsible Mining Index, the respective sections on the website should be consulted.
The RMI seeks evidence of companies’ policies and practices on economic, environmental, social and governance (EESG) issues, but does not seek to measure the actual outcomes achieved on EESG issues. Results are based only on evidence sourced from the public domain or provided by companies as open data. Whilst this information is believed to be reliable, no guarantee can be given that it is accurate or complete, nor does it preclude the possibility that policies and practices may exist, but which the RMI has not been able to consider for purposes of assessment. In this respect, the results of the low-scoring companies do not necessarily reflect a lack of relevant policies and practices; as they may be due to a lack of public reporting by the companies, limitations in accessing information, and/or any difficulties in accessing the RMI company portal.
It should be noted that, prior to publication, all companies in the Index were invited to check the factual accuracy of the contextual data and evidence upon which the Index is based and to review company information in the RMI document library.
Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of translations, the English language version should be taken as the definitive version. The RMI reserves the right to publish corrigenda on its web page, and readers of the 2018 RMI report should consult the web page for corrections or clarifications https://www.responsibleminingindex.org.